Blog

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Refers Radical Organizer Aisha Nizar to FBI After She Urges Palestinian Activists to Sabotage America’s F-35 Fighter Jets

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) is calling for a federal investigation into radical organizer Aisha Nizar, after Nizar openly encouraged Palestinian activists to intervene in the U.S. F-35 fighter jet supply chain.

The so-called “People’s Conference for Palestine,” held August 29 in Detroit, brought together thousands of anti-Israel agitators, leftist groups, and pro-Hamas sympathizers under one roof.

Far from a “peace” summit, the event quickly devolved into calls for sabotage, economic warfare, and even direct intervention against the United States military supply chain.

According to recently released reports, radical organizers are furious that shipments of U.S.-made F-35 components are being routed through Oakland International Airport en route to Israel.

Shipping documents reveal over 250 shipments this year alone, including bomb-release units (BRU-68s) capable of dropping 2,000-pound munitions.

Aisha Nizar, a leader of the Palestinian Youth Movement, told the crowd that activists must strategically intervene in the F-35 supply chain.

She described in detail how the program relies on a “just-in-time” logistics process, warning that disrupting even one node of the system could cripple U.S. operations.

Nizar:
“Is it true that 70% of the cost of the F-35 program actually comes from the supply chain? Seventy percent of this $2 trillion goes into the supply chain literally because they need to transport the different components of the F-35 to various locations for assembly.

What’s really important to know is that the F-35 supply chain functions on a “just-in-time” logistics process. It’s an inventory management system called just-in-time, which means that goods are delivered right before they’re needed.

It’s also noted that for an F-35, every one hour of flight requires three hours of maintenance. What I’m saying is that if even one specific node of the F-35 supply chain is disrupted, it has a huge impact on our people back home.

We’ve developed a methodology, and I hope we can get into it further during this panel. But what’s most important to understand is that the more we know, the more we can do. Knowledge truly is power here.

We need to be surgical, strategic, and bold in our actions, because there are many different points in these supply chains of death where we can—and must—intervene.”

Keep reading

The Assassination Of Leading Ukrainian Fascist Andrey Parubiy Might Have Been An Inside Job

Although he was an enemy of Russia who many important people likely wanted dead for a while, taking him out right now might impede a speculative US and/or intra-fascist plot to replace Zelensky.

The public assassination of leading Ukrainian fascist Andrey Parubiy has many pointing the finger at Russia and not without good reason. He was infamously implicated in the Maidan sniper provocation at the height of 2014’s Color Revolution, the Odessa Trade Union fire shortly after, and the onset of the then-Ukrainian Civil War in Donbass via his brief role as Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council. Parubiy was therefore an enemy of Russia and many there likely wanted him dead for a while.

At the same time, however, RT political analyst Nadezhda Romanenko put forth a compelling counterview arguing that his assassination was actually an inside job. According to her, Parubiy’s experience in co-organizing EuroMaidan and his alliance with former President Petro Poroshenko made him a natural enemy of Zelensky, who fears being overthrown. He also knows too many secrets about post-Maidan Ukraine so having him take them all to the grave would fill many co-conspirators with relief.

These are valid points that shouldn’t be dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”. After all, a Ukrainian Neo-Nazi assassinated their country’s top “linguistic nationalist” in July 2024 due to a perceived ideological slight, which interestingly happened in Lvov just like Parubiy’s assassination. That city is a hotbed of Ukrainian fascism where various factions are known to occasionally war against one another. It therefore wouldn’t be too difficult in theory for Zelensky’s clique to put out a hit against Parubiy there.

Likewise, a rival fascist faction might have simply taken him out on their own for whatever their ideological or business-related reason might have been, thus making it difficult to conclude who’s responsible. Even though his suspected assassin was detained less than 48 hours after the assassination, any potential claims by that individual of having been contracted by Russia should be treated with the utmost skepticism due to Ukraine’s use of torture to extract “politically convenient” confessions.

Keep reading

Democrats Are Losing the Crime Debate Because They Have Run America’s Cities for Decades

Donald Trump has cracked down on crime in Washington, DC and the operation has been so successful that his team is looking at expanding this operation to other cities.

One of the main criticisms from the left comes in the form of an accusation that Trump is only targeting Democrat controlled areas in blue states. They claim that there is plenty of crime in red states, like Louisiana.

While it’s true that there is plenty of crime in red states, the problem tends to come from red state cities, which are controlled by Democrats and have been for years.

The next time someone on the left makes this claim, simply ask them to name a major city that’s controlled by Republicans.

The folks at Issues and Insights recently looked at this issue and offered an outstanding analysis:

Care To Guess How Many Of The Deadliest Cities In The U.S. Have A Republican Mayor?

In one of his endless attempts to grab a headline, California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week taunted President Donald Trump, saying that if he’s serious about fighting crime, he should be sending the National Guard to red states such as Louisiana, which has a murder rate far higher than California.

Newsom’s attempt to troll the president failed on Sunday, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took the attention-starved governor up on his offer.

“Absolutely,” she said on “Face the Nation,” when asked if the Trump administration would send National Guard troops into cities or states run by Republicans. “Every single city is evaluated for what we need to do there to make it safer.”

But even if Trump were to follow up on this, he’d likely still end up sending National Guard troops almost exclusively into Democratic strongholds.

Not for political reasons. But because the most crime-infested parts of the country are almost entirely run by Democrats.

Keep reading

Department of War?

Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too… As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”

At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.

As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.

With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefited the American people.

Keep reading

The Case for an Interim Agreement With North Korea

Striking a nuclear deal with North Korea is the most courageous foreign policy project left unfinished from President Donald Trump’s first term. The arc from war scare and “fire and fury” to détente and “love letters” stretched over three years until its engagement phase was derailed by the failed Hanoi summit and the onset of Covid-19. Six years on, statements by the White House and the Kim regime indicate a willingness to return to talks. That is welcome, because progress toward establishing a stable U.S.–DPRK relationship remains in the interests of both sides, even accounting for the dramatic improvement in the North’s international position since 2021. 

The South Korean president Lee Jae Myung’s visit to Washington last week would have been a good opportunity for the White House to begin to adopt a new approach. Frontloading heavy demands on denuclearization foreclosed progress on other worthy issues in 2018–2019. To make headway in 2025, the U.S. must shift from “denuclearization first” to “regular engagement first,” and accept that complete denuclearization is a long-run aspiration. Trump should pitch the North on an interim deal that couples three public unilateral U.S. concessions with a private offer of sanctions relief calibrated to verifiable limits on the North’s fissile material production.

Kim Jong Un’s reciprocation is never guaranteed, but it is in America’s interests to broaden his horizons beyond fighting Russia’s war against Ukraine, international cybercrime, and untrammeled development of nuclear missiles that can strike the United States.

The 2019 Hanoi summit, the last substantive high-level U.S.–DPRK meeting, was meant to implement the four aspirations of the 2018 Singapore Joint Statement: establishing a new U.S.–DPRK relationship, building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, working toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and repatriating the remains of American soldiers who died in the Korean War. Pending a leader-level accord on denuclearization, both sides were reportedly ready to make unprecedented progress on the other three goals by signing agreements declaring a symbolic end to the Korean War, establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals, facilitating economic investment, and repatriating remains of more U.S. soldiers.

But talks on denuclearization quickly collapsed. Trump walked away from a DPRK offer to dismantle at least part of its Yongbyon plutonium and enriched uranium facility and formally halt nuclear and missile testing in exchange for the lifting of all post-2016 UN sanctions on its civilian economy. The U.S. position began with a demand for the North to freeze and dismantle all its nuclear production facilities—not only Yongbyon—in a definite period in exchange for relief from the UN sanctions. At some point the U.S. side reportedly increased its demand to include total relinquishment of North Korea’s nuclear program, including all facilities and all weapons. This “Libya model” offer bore the imprint of John Bolton, Trump’s then-National Security Advisor, and was probably designed to sabotage the talks, since Kim certainly knew of Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly death less than a decade after he relinquished his nuclear program.

Trump and Kim both gambled that the magic of a leader-level summit would allow them to achieve sweeping goals. Each devalued pre-summit talks that could have produced a more incremental, more achievable deal. Kim refused to even authorize his working level diplomats to discuss denuclearization. And the White House went ahead with the summit knowing a viable deal was not on the table. 

What is unclear from the public record is the extent to which either side, facing maximalist requests, toned down their own position to try bridge the gap. That incremental approach, which tends to de-emphasize the goal of complete denuclearization, is the best path forward.

North Korea’s willingness and capacity to harm U.S. interests is now greater than ever. Its arsenal of warheads has reportedly grown from 15 to 50 since 2016 and it is estimated to have sufficient fissile material for 40 more. It continues to test and refine ICBM designs that can strike the continental U.S., including solid-fueled models that can be dispersed and launched at short notice. North Korea’s geopolitical ambit has also spread to Europe. It has sold Russia billions of dollars’ worth of ammunition to support its war effort in Ukraine. In June 2024 Russia and North Korea signed a mutual defense treaty, and 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to fight in Russia’s Kursk region. In return, Russia has granted the country access to advanced missile and reconnaissance technologies. At the same time, Russia and China have relaxed their enforcement of the post-2016 UN sanctions, reducing pressure on the North’s civilian economy.

Keep reading

The Gaza War Isn’t Over, But Israel Has Already Lost

The Israeli regime has lost its multi-front war in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yes, really. It may not look like it, but the defeat is real and  baked into Israel’s future.

Let me first make the case for Israeli “victory”:

Since its 2023 invasion of Gaza, the Israeli Defence Forces report fewer than 800 troops killed, while in turn killing tens — maybe hundreds — of thousands of mostly civilian Palestinian Arabs (and 250 or more inconvenient journalists).

Since the beginning. They’ve established their ability to attack any point in Gaza at will, driving a displaced, hungry population back and forth over piles of bodies, while seizing more land in the West Bank and Syria, liquidating Hezbollah’s Lebanese strongholds, trading missile strikes with Yemen’s Houthis, and even emerging relatively unscathed, if not particularly successful, in an intermittent war with Iran.

Top Israeli regime officials confidently assert that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank are inevitable.

Yes, that sounds rather like multiple “victories,” accomplished and pending.

But those victories didn’t come from nowhere. They were enabled by decades of massive financial, military, and diplomatic support from the United States.

Yes, other regimes too, but most of those “allies” are moving in the other direction already — cutting off arms sales, recognizing a Palestinian state, and sanctioning Israeli war criminals.

It’s quickly coming down to the “no daylight between us” US/Israel relationship under which the former annually shovels billions of dollars, and when requested direct military assistance, at the latter, no questions asked (US law “guarantees” Israel a “Qualitative Military Edge”), while using its own sanctions power and veto on the UN Security Council to protect Benjamin Netanyahu and Friends from the consequences of their actions.

That relationship is nearing its end.

Keep reading

Federal Court Vacates Injunction on $16B in EPA Climate Grants

A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated a lower court order requiring the Environmental Protection Agency and Citibank to continue funding $16 billion in climate-related grants, ruling that the grantees are unlikely to prevail in their lawsuit.

Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the panel, said the district court “abused its discretion” in issuing a preliminary injunction after five nonprofits sued the agency over its March 2025 decision to terminate the awards.

The court found that the groups’ claims were primarily contractual and must be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims, while their constitutional claim was without merit.

The case centers on grants awarded under the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. In August 2024, the EPA directed $20 billion to eight nonprofits through two new programs, the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator.

The plaintiffs include Climate United Fund, which was awarded nearly $7 billion; the Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion; Power Forward Communities, $2 billion; Inclusiv, $1.9 billion; and the Justice Climate Fund, $940 million.

The grants were structured through Citibank, which was designated as the federal government’s financial agent to hold and release the funds under EPA’s direction. That arrangement later became central to the legal dispute.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama and who is often criticized by President Donald Trump, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EPA’s attempt to terminate several of the nonprofit agreements. Her order also prohibited Citibank from disbursing funds while the case was pending.

The grants had been targeted as part of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s campaign to claw back money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which Congress authorized under former President Joe Biden to launch pollution-reduction projects.

The EPA cited concerns about conflicts of interest and oversight in halting the program. The appeals court said the equities “strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund.”

Keep reading

MASSIVE! “In the Closet” Playwright and DOJ Lawyer Drafts Motion to Dismiss Proud Boys’ $100M Lawsuit — Biden’s Star Witness Recants, Admits Feds Forced False Testimony! NAMES NAMED! VILE CORRUPTION STILL INSIDE DOJ & FBI!

Eight months into President Trump’s second term, Biden-era operatives still infest the Department of Justice.

Check out exposé on dirty DOJ bad actors still hiding out in the agency’s darkest corners:

DOJ moves to dismiss the $100M Proud Boys lawsuit

DIRTY DOJ EXPOSE!!! We name names!!

DOJ attorney Siegmund F. Fuchs just filed paperwork to kill the case brought by Enrique Tarrio and the “Seditious Five” — men who say they were politically persecuted by Biden’s DOJ… pic.twitter.com/oIjJxnvQH0

— LindellTV (@RealLindellTV) August 29, 2025

This seemingly permanent class of partisan bureaucrats — holdovers from the Obama–Biden years and deep state administrations before them — have festered in place across administrations, surviving presidents and feeding off power like leeches, draining the institution while weaponizing justice against Trump supporters.

Now, one of them — DOJ attorney and part-time playwright Siegmund F. Fuchs — has filed paperwork to dismiss the $100 million lawsuit brought by Proud Boys leaders, in yet another bid to shield the deep state from accountability for political persecution.

The lawsuit, filed by Enrique Tarrio and the so-called “Seditious Five,” charges that Biden’s DOJ engaged in “egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system” to silence political opponents. Proud Boys civil attorneys argue their clients were railroaded with inflated charges, deprived of due process, and sentenced to decades in prison before President Trump ultimately pardoned or commuted many of them earlier this year.

Yet the Department of Justice insists there was “no misconduct.”

That claim collapses under the weight of bombshell new revelations from the government’s own star witness.

Keep reading

Attorney Clevenger Threatens to Call in AG Pam Bondi to Testify in Seth Rich Case and DOJ’s Withholding of Key Documents – Claims Documents Will Point to Inside Job at DNC in Email Leak

Ty Clevenger fired off a blistering letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel back in April, accusing the FBI of flagrantly concealing critical records about the late DNC staffer Seth Rich and the now-discredited Russia collusion narrative.

In February 2024, Clevenger demanded that the FBI hand over the Seth Rich documents that they continue to conceal from the public.

The FBI’s refusal follows a pattern of obfuscation. For years, the agency denied even possessing Seth Rich’s laptop—until Clevenger’s legal efforts forced the FBI to admit they had it all along. Yet, the agency still refuses to disclose any metadata from Seth Rich’s electronic devices.

Even more damning, Clevenger has already uncovered proof that the FBI improperly withheld pages from the CrowdStrike report related to the alleged 2016 DNC hack—an event that conveniently became a political weapon against President Donald Trump.

In April, Attorney Ty Clevenger filed a motion in federal court to hold the FBI in contempt for what he calls a “deliberate and willful defiance” of a court order mandating the release of key information related to murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich.

The letter obtained by The Gateway Pundit implicated former DOJ and intelligence officials in what Clevenger describes as a systemic cover-up designed to protect the Obama-era deep state operatives and their media allies.

Clevenger, representing plaintiff Brian Huddleston in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI (Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation), claims the agency is withholding documents that could unravel the official narrative surrounding Rich’s 2016 murder and the so-called ‘Russian hacking’ of DNC emails.

The attorney argues that the FBI’s refusal to release records, including those from Rich’s work laptop, is not only a violation of FOIA but also an attempt to shield evidence that could exonerate Russia and point to an inside job at the DNC.

In his letter to Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and other Trump officials, Clevenger highlighted compelling evidence suggesting Rich was the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks, not Russian hackers as alleged by the Mueller investigation and the intelligence community.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange hinted at Rich’s involvement in a 2016 interview, offering a $20,000 reward for information on his murder. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh also claimed in a sworn deposition that a trusted source confirmed Rich as the leaker.

Clevenger points to the FBI’s possession of Rich’s work laptop, a personal laptop image, a DVD, and a tape drive—items the bureau initially denied having. Despite court orders to examine these devices, the FBI has stonewalled, refusing to confirm whether it has even reviewed the laptop’s contents.

Keep reading

China’s Economic Miracle a Myth: Middle Class Still Poorer Than U.S. Welfare Recipients

China apologists often repeat the Communist Party’s line about the so-called “Chinese Economic Miracle,” claiming that Beijing has “lifted 800 million people out of poverty” as proof that its system is superior to the American one. What they ignore is that it was the Communist Party that first drove some 700 million people into poverty, and it was only the partial adoption of American-style capitalism that allowed them to climb out.

Another oft-cited statistic is that since 2000, average income in China has grown by about 700 percent, compared with only 92 percent in the United States. But the American starting point was far higher. In 1900, average annual income in the U.S. was about $450, while in China it was just $15.

By 2000, the U.S. figure had risen to $41,989, compared with only $959 in China. Today, U.S. average income is $80,610, while China’s stands at just $13,300.

China’s middle class is often estimated at 500 million people, larger than the entire U.S. population. But the definition is misleading. The Chinese government counts anyone earning as little as $7,250 a year as “middle class.” By comparison, in 2024 the average annual disposable income in the United States was about $52,000, or $4,333 per month.

China’s own National Development and Reform Commission reports that 900 million Chinese citizens had a monthly disposable income under $282, and 600 million lived on less than $143.

To qualify for public benefits in the U.S., a single-person household typically must earn $2,510 or less per month before taxes to be eligible for SNAP (food stamps). In fiscal year 2025, the average benefit per person is expected to be $187 per month, or $6.16 per day. This means that nearly all Chinese households would qualify for U.S. food assistance, and that the average food stamp allowance in America is greater than the total disposable income of most Chinese citizens.

Unlike the former Soviet Union, China provides its citizens with very limited socialized benefits. Public schools charge fees, retirement benefits are meager, and healthcare is far from free. Families must shoulder most of the costs themselves, often leaving China’s so-called middle class with less disposable income than U.S. welfare recipients.

Keep reading